Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 10

Offsetting in airline lists

What's the justification for this layout?

I have yet to see an article where the "zig-zag" structure clarifies anything. At small airports, you get the effect above, where the mainline carriers are listed even though they don't fly there. At big hubs, it looks even sillier because you end up with a fat block of mainline destinations and a thinner block of regional destinations. IMO, it's just as informative to say:

So why do we offset the regionals? - Sekicho 20:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Because nobody looks for a sign that says "American Eagle" - they look for one that says "American Airlines." The entire justification for the regionals is that they are intended to be tied as closely to the mainline brand as possible. You can't buy a ticket for "US Airways Express." You can buy a ticket on US Airways. FCYTravis

Accents in airport names

Hi, I'm new to Wikiprojects and thought I'd like to participate in the airport project. I have already created Valencia Airport, and I was wondering whether accents should be used in destination lists, for example, is it Zurich or Zürich? Callumm 20:17, 04 January 2006 (UTC)

Creating redirect pages

Under the heading 'creation of a new airport' on the main project page, should the fourth dot point be changed to read: Create redirect articles or disambiguation pages for the ICAO and IATA Codes instead of Create redirect articles for the ICAO and IATA Codes as it currently reads? I thought I'd best put a note up here first before diving in and changing it. -- Adz 11:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

  • How about Create redirect articles or disambiguation pages as appropiate for the ICAO and IATA Codes? Vegaswikian 06:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Even better! -- Adz|talk 06:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Thanks a lot! Gflores Talk 17:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Airports not included

It is my understanding that this project covers all airports since we are working to improve the quality of all articles that are airport related. I have removed that change and broght the discussion over here. The airport that one editor listed as not a part of this project was Singapore Changi Airport. I don't see how removing one airport from the project can improve quality of the encylopedia as a whole. I strongly feel if we are going to support an action like that, then we will be creating a large problem. In any case, doing something like that requires a discussion here since it is a major change to the project. It is not a minor change in my mind. It seems to be an effort to avoid the consensus process. Vegaswikian 19:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess this is really a continuation of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#Standardisation - Singapore Changi Airport above... I think this is an all or nothing affair, and the guidelines of this project would improve any/all airport articles.
Personally I think we need to knock the Singapore Changi Airport article into shape, but i'm not sure I've got the stomach for it... T/wangi 19:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
From reading some comments, it looks like any changes to the article to help make it more conforming are removed by a group of editors. This affects two projects since the same is true for the airline. So it looks like the options are:
  1. Ignore the articles.
  2. Be involved in a revert war
  3. Protect the article
  4. Move most of the material to a travel wiki
  5. Turn it over to the cleanup crew
If I was to choose I probably go with the protect, tag for cleanup and ask the cleanup project to do the work. While I may not agree with everything they do, in this case their help might be useful for many reasons. Vegaswikian 19:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Vegas, I'm sorry if I made a major change. Thanks for pointing it out. However, as I personally experienced, efforts in trying to standardize the SIN article is countered by reversions of a few SGpedians. They have taken it to their own hands that they do not want to standardize the article, so as to conform to the Wikiprojects template. So, I thought that in order to spare future newbies (such as me) from using their energy against these people, I excluded the SIN article, and together, the SQ articles, from the corresponding projects. If you got a better idea, I'm listening. Elektrik Blue 82 21:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Well there are three options listed above. If you have others to suggest we are listening. On wiki, problems and issues are suppose to be handled by gathering consensus. We also are suppose to be guided by the policies and guidelines. That's why I brought the discussion here so that we can work towards generating some consensus. Remember that there is a difference between this encylopedia wiki and the travel wiki. I suspect that much of what those editors want to include would be welcome in a travel wiki (ah, a 4th option). Vegaswikian 22:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I'd prefer to protect the article, only if I knew how. And ideally, I'd want someone to arbitrate on the decision. After all, what's wrong with standardization? Elektrik Blue 82 22:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I would definitely not support protecting the article, as that would be against Wikipedia's protection policies. Protection isn't used to enforce a side in an edit war. What I would be in favor of doing is just en masse descending upon the article and making the changes we feel are best for the article. Strength in numbers and consensus. FCYTravis 04:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Well at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Singapore_Changi_Airport&oldid=28894679 there's a list of the destinations in the std format - should save someone a bit of work on trawling through the nasty table format it's currently in. Obviously it needs to be updated, but I think this'll be less work than reconverting the entire list! Thanks/wangi 10:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Added a fifth option above, let the cleanup crew handle it. Vegaswikian 19:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
So, I see User:69.234.78.52 (wonder who that is) has started reverting and adding back in the codeshares... thanks/wangi 10:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Since Changi is not part of the project, I don't see why we need to standardise it. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 10:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I admit that my edit summary on the talk page was misleading, so I added a clarification. I did not mean that the article shouldn't be part of the WikiProject; the idea is that all airport articles are. I removed the project tag because the page is far from representative of the work of this project and I do not want new users thinking that the SIN article uses the standard format that other pages should follow. If we can fix the article, then the tag should be restored. Dbinder 13:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we could use "Airport articles not yet standardized" to emphasize that we do intend to include it in the project, but it's not done yet. MCB 19:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I think we should decide whether we would include it in the project or not. Obviously, the SGpedians do not want to include it, since they have their own way of writing the article, which is significantly different from the guidelines of the project. If we do decide to include it, then implementation is the next task. If we edit it, it would only take a matter of hours, if not minutes, for one of the SGpedians to revert it in their own preferred style. If there are any suggestions regarding this... Elektrik Blue 82 19:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I have avoided commenting in these pages since I considered myself a non-participant (or rather, as I was on strike), but I think I have had enough with comments such as the one above. It sickens me knowing there are individuals who choose the easy way out, prefering to either exclude or include by force, instead of sitting down to discuss why opposing views exists. The continued labelling of "SGpedians" in such a way is what I see as galvanising otherwise nuetral editors to take this as a war against a particular group of people being portrayed negatively as partisans, rebels, or renegades. Pardon my language, but since when did wikipedia become a nursery playground?--Huaiwei 20:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I do not understand you. First, you suggested to remove the relevant articles of SIN and SQ from the relevant projects (Let me remind you of your comment when you reverted the SQ destinations article February 5, 2006 8:08). Now you are sickened that there are people "prefering to either exclude or include by force". Make up your mind. I also do not use "SGpedians" as a label for "galvanising otherwise nuetral (sic) editors". I only use that term for practical reasons. Or maybe you'd like me to name all of you who always reverts edits in the relevant articles if the edits do not suit your tastes? Namely Vsion, Terenceong1992, and Huaiwei? Besides, one of you actually used that in referring to you collectively back in 2005. One more thing, why should you get the impression that this term treats you as rebels or renegades, when all three of you are not listed as participants (at least as of this hour) in the first place? Elektrik Blue 82 00:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I do not quite understand you or your antics either. Firstly, may it go down in the records, that the idea of excluding articles from wikiproject have never crossed my mind as even a possibility, until I noticed Dbinder removing the wikproject tag from both the Singapore Changi Airport and Singapore Airlines articles. Interesting, for it makes me wonder if this action is sending a message of "you wont follow my lead? Then I shall disown you". And to further enforce this message, you added a section [1] known as "Airports that are not part of the project", an amusing step leaving me to wonder if that reflects your self-censorship from the articles in question, or simply a refusal to discuss and negotiate.
So fine. If that is the kind of immature stand some of you are going to take, then please, be my guest. Feel free to extend the same condition on all articles you have a problem with, and that includes the one on SIA destinations, hence my statement "Then exclude this article from the wikiproject as has been done for Singapore Changi Airport", if you want to use this wikiproject as a basis for revert warring, a behavior which is far more damaging to wikipedia on the whole. So a mere suggestion on my part based on the behavior of yourself and Dbinder is reflective of me wanting out? Of my wanting to label ourselves as renegades? Hardly. You excluded us before I even "asked" for it, so in what way is my comment contradictory?
As for the term SGpedians, it was, for your information, a term we coined to refer to ourselves. Nothing inflammatory about it at all as a label for Sg-related individuals. Instead, I take obvious issue with your sweeping statement claiming "the SGpedians do not want to include it". For your information, the people who have ever opposed any of these so-called "standardisation" efforts dont just come from the SGpedian community alone, and neither are all SGpedians sharing like-minded opinions. If you have to list the three individuals, then yes that is precisely what you should be doing, without insulting an entire community with such degrading comments. Practical reasons my foot. Your utilisation of the label reflects strongly on your believe that certain individuals from a certain locality are ganging up to promote POV in an article related to that locality, and it clearly shows in the way you attempt to "remove" this POV.
Last but not least, do share your thoughts on how non-participants in this wikiproject cannot be labelled as "rebels or renegades"? I would certainly like to get some insights into how your grey matter works before commenting.--Huaiwei 07:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Guys, can we just edit up a version of the SIN article as we'd want it at a sub-page then then turn it over to other parties (cleanup crew, RfC, whatever)? wangi 08:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I dont quite get you. You are encouraging article-forking in place of discussions?--Huaiwei 08:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Who's forking an article? An article on a sub (talk) page is a good way to get a complete revision in place for discussion and comparison, without constant reverts. Very little of the discussion above is about the task at hand... Thanks/wangi 09:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
As it stands, the existing article is not reflective of anyone's ideals, so what kind of comparison are you refering to? And if that is not forking an article, what is?--Huaiwei 09:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not forking because it's not a real article in the encyclopedia namespace and it will have no inward links from other articles. All it is is a tool to aid discussion. If the current article does not meet your ideals then point to a past revision that does, or feel free to demonstrate how you feel it should be (on another sub page). T/wangi 09:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
There has been numerous debates over the virtues of creating "unreal articles", for many a times, they have been used to validate a version over another, no different for forking an article, obviously. The article does not, and have never been a demonstration of my full intentions. And to ask me to utilise the same article-forking method I just criticised to justify my version is some kind of a mockery to me.--Huaiwei 10:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I am trying to work with you here, I'm trying to be constructive, and I'm trying to focus on the problem rather than expanding it and argumenting for arguments sake. One of the intended uses of sub-pages is for drafts of major article revisions. wangi 10:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Considering unending debates over the utilisation of sub-pages, which is clearly evident even in the guideline article you quote above, I would personally prefer a more productive means of hammering out a deal which all are amicable to. Unless you are telling me you have a wealth of information now which you are clamouring to add, instead of this merely being a formatting/presentation dispute, then would not a reference to any article here which "conforms" to your existing "standards" to demonstrate your intentions be just as effective?--Huaiwei 12:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
<<bashes head against wall>> /wangi 12:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Huaiwei, if you don't want the articles to be standardized, per the Wikiproject guidelines, then why are you making such a big fuzz about whether the articles should be included or not? If you want to include it, then subject it to standardization. If you don't want it to subject to standardization, then don't include it. Simple as that. It is simple modus tollens, Huaiwei. And regarding your suggestion to exclude the articles, isn't that what the English sentence conveys as its meaning? If you have other meanings in mind, make it clear. As far as the sentence is concerned, you wanted the articles out of the project.
And regarding my use of the term "SGpedians", I do not use it to make a sweeping statement, as you claim. Notice that in two out of three occasions, I qualify my statements, such as "a few SGpedians" and "one of the SGpedians". This translates as "There is a set of SGpedians, and within that set, there is an entity or entities" to which I am referring of. Notice I never used a universal quantifier. Semantics, Huaiwei, semantics.
Regarding rebels and renegades, it is just the same as military deserters. You cannot be a deserter unless you are part of the unit. Elektrik Blue 82 11:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
You appear to be tripping over yourselves in trying to force me into pre-conceived moulds of who you think I am and what I want here. Yes, I "don't want the articles to be standardized", based on some of the existing Wikiproject guidelines. So the obvious solution is to discuss the relevant guidelines, and not to start removing articles the way you have done. Your modus operandi appears to be highly flawed, and setting an unhealthy precedent in wikipedia's efforts to promote community-based efforts. Your "you are with me, or you are not with me" mentality may be "simple" in your books, but are woefully simplistic, immature and inappriopriate in mine.
So by your books, you took my sentence in one article to mean I "wanted the articles out of the project". At the same time, you expect others to understand "semantics", to take context into consideration, and to qualify your statements for you. Hypocrisy knows no bounds I suppose? ;)
And the "unit" we talk about here is the wikipedian community, not this wikiproject. Aviation-related articles are not in the sole domain of this project's participants, and are not subject solely to their contributions. Every single wikipedian is fully entitled to edit them, to agree or disagree with project guidlines, and to comment, suggest and debate on them. Shocking, indeed, that for one lambasting others for "taking ownership" of articles, he appears to be just as gulty of demonstrating the exact same fault?--Huaiwei 11:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Funny, if my mentality is "woefully simplistic, immature and inappriopriate", then how come you spend time answering it? I was getting the impression that you don't deal with "nursery playground" people?
Oh well, I tried to be logical, but obviously, it still doesn't work. I won't deal with illogical people from now on. Elektrik Blue 82 12:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Answering what? ;) If you think I dont deal with "nursery playground" people, you gotta be quite mistaken. As you probably know, it is often greatly critical for parents or teachers to keep a watchful eye over their charges as they roll around in the playground, before disaster strikes.
I suppose logic hurts, especially when it turns out that you arent much better than the folks you are choosing to nit-pick on.--Huaiwei 12:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, if anyone is going to clean this article up, now would be a good time. Huaiwei has just been blocked for 2 weeks. McNeight 16:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

PCN

I miss Pavement Classification Number - could somebody please initiate this article? Scriberius 19:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. Now you have to create Aircraft Classification Number. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Redvers Airport

I need some suggestions as to what to do with this airport. As of the new CFS (Feb 16) the airport is listed as abandoned, so do I

  1. Delete the stub and the ICAO code link.
  2. Turn it into something like Killaloe/Bonnechere Airport and create a new category Category:Historical airports in Saskatchewan.
  3. Some other idea

Right now I am leaning towards 2 but I'm open to ideas. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I think 2 is the only choice. Basically if an airport closes, new material would not be added. It stays as a document of the no longer active airport. More information can be added if someone finds some, but other then that, few updates would be expected. Vegaswikian 06:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:Airports in the Mojave Desert

This category just appeared. Any opinions on it? Vegaswikian 08:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

it seems a little odd I would have thought List of airports in the Mojave Desert would have been a better idea. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd go with the list. Dbinder 16:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Why not Wikilink the destinations?

This policy seems a little odd to me - it's usual Wikipedia policy to Wikilink any mention of a city in other articles, and the destinations served by an airport are not necessarily mentioned elsewhere in the article. What's the rationale behind not Wikilinking them? — SteveRwanda 10:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the policy as is. The number of links would be excessive and clutter up the page. Also, it would make editing more cumbersome, since every single link would have to be in the form [[Airport|City]]. Dbinder 16:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Not only that, but looking at airport articles that do wikilink, it becomes confusing at times, especially where there are two airlines that have many destinations listed right next to each other. You can't tell where one begins and the other ends. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 05:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Non-Airport Disambiguation

KABQ is also an Albuquerque radio station call sign. I don't know how to set up a disambiguation page.

Select the name on the redirected from line. Then edit the redirect article to a dab. I did this for KABQ. Note that the radio station article needs to be disambiguated as KABQ (AM). Vegaswikian 23:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Aruba or Oranjestad?

Hello all. What seems to be the consensus on this? I tried to search around but found nothing. Personally, I prefer Aruba over Oranjestad, Mauritius over Mahebourg, basically, island over city-within-island, simply because the island is more identifiable than the city. Any thoughts on this? Elektrik Blue 82 00:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Why don't do we do Oranjestad (Aruba). Actually, I don't really see the point to putting the destinations within brackets, other than making it look neater. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 01:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Newcastle airport coordinates wrong

While browsing Wikipedia with Google Earth, I noticed that the coordinates of Newcastle Airport are very far off. I don't know the correct ones, so I haven't fixed it. AxelBoldt 01:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I didn't use the .kmz file from the web site you linked, but I'm looking at the article in one window and Google Earth in another, and the coordinates appear correct to me. MCB 04:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Click on the coordinate link in the article, then on "mapquest". You'll get a beautiful red star in the middle of the North Sea. AxelBoldt 00:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
That's because the coordinates said East when it should be West. Try it now. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Yup, works beautifully. Thanks! AxelBoldt 05:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Ooops! I very carefully checked the digits in each field against each other, but must have missed the E/W part! Sorry about that. MCB 05:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation of cities with multiple airports

This wasn't fully resolved the last time it was brought up... so what is the actual policy? The airport page says that (London-Heathrow) or (London Heathrow) with or without dashes is fine, yet pages have been reverted for changing it. Not to mention, it is different from article to article as it stands.

The slash marks should be eliminated as an option because they are used with an airport serving two cities (ala Seattle/Tacoma). Dashes are also used in conjunction with city-city pairings, and they just look ugly in general. There shouldn't be any problem with using the city and the airport name after (like how it would be spoken); but, using the IATA code looks the cleanest. It also takes up less space and makes the list more streamlined. And, it is the most practical for use in conjunction with travel websites, etc. (Usually a person only puts in the IATA code or city name, not the name of the airport...)

So, what does everyone else think (and maybe something concrete can be decided)?

Which is best?

(Buenos Aires EZE, London LHR, New York JFK, Paris ORY)

(Buenos Aires Ezeiza, London Heathrow, New York JFK, Paris Orly)

(Buenos Aires-Ezeiza, London-Heathrow, New York-JFK, Paris-Orly)

(Buenos Aires/Ezeiza, London/Heathrow, New York/JFK, Paris/Orly)

I think I agree that a space is best. However, I'm not sure whether codes or names would be better. On the one hand, I think I would like to see "Paris Orly" and "Paris CDG". "Paris ORY" seems a little strange to me (especially to save one letter), but "Paris Charles de Gaulle" is too long for my tastes. If I had to pick though, I guess I'd take codes over long names. Rdore 18:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I prefer the space and the actual name (i.e., the second alternative above, London Heathrow, etc.). Codes are fine for us airline/airport people who have them all memorized :-), but the vast number of readers of Wikipedia do not. Nevertheless, there should be exceptions to this rule: "New York JFK" is much better than "New York John F. Kennedy". Dunno which side CDG falls on. But I strongly believe both the hyphen and the slash are a bad idea. MCB 19:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd go with the hyphen, except in the case where the airport's actual name includes the city name (e.g. London Heathrow). So it should be Chicago-O'Hare, New York-JFK, London Heathrow, etc. This will also serve to clarify in the article if the city name is part of the airport name. Dbinder 20:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I would pick the third option, even in the case of LHR and LGW. I think the first component should be the city name, and the second component would be the distinguishing element for the airport, regardless if the official name includes the city name or not. I'd rather base it on common usage, which implies that I prefer (New York-JFK) and (Paris-Charles de Gaulle) over (New York-John F Kennedy) and (Paris-CDG) simply because people refer to these airports as "JFK" and "Charles de Gaulle" more than the other option. I believe the same goes for LHR, people refer to it as "Heathrow" than "London Heathrow". But then, that's just my 0.02 USD. Elektrik Blue 82 20:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I strongly prefer the hyphen, as a mere space does not adequately help readers determine where the city name ends and the airport name begins. Is it York Kennedy Airport in New City? Something is needed to visually differentiate the two different name structures being used within the same clause. FCYTravis 12:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
While no one refers to New York's airport as John F. Kennedy, I've heard equal numbers say "JFK" as "Kennedy". The two terms are interchangeable, so JFK is not the "standard". Either should be acceptable. Dbinder 16:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
We ought to settle on one or the other. Everything else on every other article is JFK. If we want to switch everything to Kennedy, that's cool, I have no objection to it - but it looks ugly to have things one way on some articles and a different way on others. This is about standardization, after all. FCYTravis 17:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Airports are not being spelled out in all cases. While LaGuardia is being spelled out, Kennedy is not (JFK being used). Similar airports are being spelled out. We use O'Hare, Midway; Love; Hobby, Intercontinental; Dulles, National/Reagan; Heathrow, Gatwick; Orly, Charles de Gaulle; Narita, Haneda; etc. From an editorial perspective, codes should never be used, especially since they are meaningless when composed in sentence form. This is also preferred style according to the two major manuals of style used by editors, Chicago Manual of Style and Gregg Reference Manual. Codes should only be used with space constraints, such as in tables.
I think you make a fine argument, and it's my opinion that we should standardize on Kennedy. Any objections? FCYTravis 17:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it should be New York-JFK and not Kennedy because more people say and use "JFK instead of "Kennedy". 71.12.193.242 02:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
More people also say DFW, not Dallas/Fort Worth; Cincinnati, not Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky; Raleigh, not Raleigh/Durham; Baltimore, not Baltimore/Washington; and Minneapolis, not Minneapolis/St. Paul. 70.123.197.99 04:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
DFW, CVG, RDU, BWI and MSP are airports that serve two major cities. This is different from JFK, where it is one airport of a city having multiple airports. Elektrik Blue 82 05:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Charters

Should the destinations of charter airlines be listed in the airport articles? Take Manchester International Airport for example. There are separate listings for the terminals, and there are notations whether the destinations are scheduled or charter. I personally think this is just plain messy. Besides, charters do not have permanent routes, that's why they aren't scheduled. Then if that is the case, then why list their destinations? Would it be preferrable if we just list the charter airlines that operate out of a certain airport on a separate subheading, without the cities listed, regardless on (in MAN's case) whether they operate from T1 or T2? Elektrik Blue 82 00:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

St. John's International Airport

Could you look at that article. I don't think that it is improved by having all those images down the side. I could see having the St. John's logo but all the airline logos distract. What does anyone else feel? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

They look terrible, and there's no reason for them to be there. Dbinder 15:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
It's also an inappropriate use of fair-use images - the logos. We cannot argue fair use, so they should go... /wangi 15:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Codeshares

I know that in WikiProject Airlines, it says that codeshares should not be listed for the secondary carrier. And I am following that. However, one editor insists on putting codeshares on the page for Kansai International Airport. I am currently in a content dispute with him, me being against the inclusion of codeshares, and he being for it. Could someone act as a third party to this? Elektrik Blue 82 02:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your approach and have tentatively added the following to the policy:
Do not list secondary carriers for code share flights. For example, if Air New Zealand operates a domestic flight under its own flight number and an additional Singapore Airlines codeshare, the codeshare can be noted for the Air NZ flight but this should not be listed as a Singapore Airlines flight.
Actually, the code shares should only be listed as a general comment on the airlines' article. I thought we had reached agreement on this a while ago. The decision was that the destinations should only list destinations for the carrier that flys the airplane on the route. Vegaswikian 04:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
That's what I thought as well. I believe it is not necessary to list the codeshare info even for the primary carrier. As Vegaswikian said, destinations should only list the cities in which the metal of the actual airline flies to. Elektrik Blue 82 11:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi. The metal of the actual airline flies to? So would you explain DAB convention if your premise were right, Mr "contribute, contribute, contribute!"? Thank you. KGF 13:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Is name-calling really necessary here? I find it ironic that you express thanks after calling me names. Elektrik Blue 82 12:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The rationale is simply that this avoids unnecessary clutter and confusion, as no Singapore Airlines planes will ever fly the route in question, it's just a bit in a reservations database somewhere. Comments welcome. Jpatokal 04:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
And the different between a codeshare and an operated-by is that eg. Song flights use Song metal but have only Delta flight numbers. It would be a codeshare if there was a primary Song flight number and a secondary Delta flight number. Jpatokal 04:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. It seems quite similar between a codeshare and an operated-by, even your explanation is inambiguous. Accoring to the part of the sentences, which you deleted just before stating "your" rulles on codeshares: 

# US Airways (Destinations)
   * US Airways operated by America West Airlines (Destinations)

it could be understand as the codeshares convention. I believe it would be helpful if there are description about codeshare flights with clarity. Codeshare flights information does not seem to be unnecessary clutter and confusion, rather vital important info at any "airports" If codeshare flights info seemed to be clutter, it would be a matter of expression or structure of conventions. Comments welcome. KGF 19:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for overlooking your constructive idea that what I would had in the dispute with Mr.Elektrik blue 82.
* Delta Airlines operated by Korean Air (Seoul-Incheon)
* Korean Air (Busan, Jeju, Seoul-Incheon)
 it would look like this:
* Korean Air (Busan, Jeju, Seoul-Incheon), codeshare for Delta Airlines

It seems to be reasonable. However, it is ambiguous which destination is codeshared or not based on the proposed convention. In addition, codeshared flights are sometimes scheduled from different terminals/wings. Your proposed idea might another confusion instead of clarity. Codeshared information does not seem to be little as you said especially when we check out flights using FFPs, such as OneWorld, StarAlliance, SkyTeam and so on. KGF 20:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

But if an airline does not fly the given route (or doesn't even fly to that airport in many cases), then listing it is misleading. First of all, there's the question of which terminal the flight should be listed under - the operating airline or the codesharing airline? Codeshares are for marketing purposes. The only reason US Airways is listed US operated by HP is because the two airlines merged and are in the process of merging their flight operations. America West is no longer listed as a separate airline. Dbinder 09:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


Thank you, Mr. Fairness. I understand that codeshares are for marketing purposes. And so what? The point should be whether articles are useful or not. Codeshare flights info will not be misleading if the appropriate convention is installed. The followings are some idea abouts codeshared flights:

(Type 1)

(Type 2)

Hope you are not the guy who oppose anything without an alternative. Welcome comments.KGF 22:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

How about:

(Type 3)

i.e. Leave it as it is. Another issue with codeshares is that on short-haul flights (especially US domestic), where 3 or more airlines may have their code on a flight, it would cause airport articles to be pointlessly long. Destination lists in O'Hare and DFW would probably double, since Air China and Star Alliance members codeshare with United on many flights, as do Alaska Airlines and oneworld carriers with American. If an airline doesn't fly to an airport, it shouldn't be listed. Dbinder 12:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd vote for (Type 3) per Dbinder's stated reasons. Elektrik Blue 82 13:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, keep things as-is and do not list codeshares. And I'll up your total... Here at Edinburgh Airport it's not unusual to have six (or more) codeshares on a flight... /wangi 13:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Clearly Type 3, per Dbinder. It would be uselessly duplicative to list every single destination that United flies to from San Francisco under the "US Airways" heading - but just about every United flight from SFO also carries a US code. Also an ANA code, a Thai code... you name it. There is a clear distinction between the "operated by" subsidiary listings and codeshares. Flights listed as "ABC Airways operated by XYZ Airlines" are more-or-less seamlessly marketed and operated as one airline brand image, but operated by a different operating entity for various reasons. United Express flights are branded as United, even though there's about six or seven airlines flying for United Express. Codeshare flights are not branded as the code-placing airline, but are branded as the operating airline. FCYTravis 21:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Based on the support for the current arrangement, I'll modify the project page to reflect this in a few hours. That will allow for objections before any changes. Vegaswikian 23:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks to explanation by other wikipedian but Mr. Elektrik blue 82, who just showed his agreement, I got it. It becomes too redundant for major airports in the US and Europe for codeshare listing. However, from passengers views (not nerds views), knowing the fact "ABC Airways operated by XYZ Airlines" seems less meaning than knowing the codeshared flights when you go to airports. Thus, it still supposed to be demands for codeshare flights in the future. Then, I wonder how do WikiProject Airlines wikipedian solve it. KGF 02:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well Wikipedia isn't a travel guide. If someone is confused on who they're actually flying with then the airline isn't doing their job right. In the franchise scenario ("ABC Airways operated by XYZ Airlines") it makes sense to include the additional information on who is actually operating the flight since the flight is operated on their planes, under their AOC and under their insurance etc - that's encyclopedic. /wangi 09:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Over the top tech info

What's your opinion on full airfield details within an article? For example as is the case with Humberside Airport[2]? Thanks/wangi 22:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it should be included, for several reasons: (1) it's not really encyclopedic information, which is summary in nature, rather than an attempt to be a primary source, and Wikipedia is not an instruction manual; (2) the information can be obtained from sites like AirNav, FlightAware, Skyvector, AirportsA-Z, etc., which can be presented in the External links section as direct links; and (3) unlike things like runway headings, which don't change often, the other technical info does change, it is a burden to keep up to date, and pilots should not be relying on Wikipedia for critical technical information such as frequencies, magnetic deviation, etc. MCB 22:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree. This is information that is not of general interest. For those that have an interest, there are better sources that they should be using and probably know about. If it is a concern that the links need to be available, then maybe they can be added to the information templates that are used to generate the links. Vegaswikian 23:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Tri-Cities Airport vs. Tri-Cities Airport

The Greater Binghamton Airport article refers to the "Tri-Cities Airport" but unwittingly refers to the Tri-Cities Airport KPSC in Pasco, Washington State as opposed to the "correct" Tri-Cities Airport KCZG in Endicott, New York State. What is the procedure for creating a new page for the Tri-Cities Airport in Endicott? Besides the GBA page having an incorrect link, so does the List_of_airports_by_ICAO_code:_K

  • OK, I think this is cleared up now. If you look at Tri-Cities Airport, it is now a dab that should clear this up. For the record, I found three airports using that name. I cleaned up several articles, and I think things are straight now. To create the article, just click on the red link. Vegaswikian 02:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Essential air service

I was starting to add a reference to essential air service to those airports covered by this program but stopped when I thought a category might be better for this. Comments? Vegaswikian 16:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I think it's probably good both as a category and a brief mention within the article - something like, "Commercial service at XYZ is subsidized through the Essential Air Service program." FCYTravis 09:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
    • OK, I added the cat and will slowly add the airports. At a later date we can go in and modify the text that should be easy using the cat as a list to work from. Vegaswikian 19:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Grandes-Bergeronnes Airport

Can someone look at this. I have changed it back and asked the editor what the problem with it was. Am I wrong in thinking that the Canada Flight Supplement is a source rather than a see also? I really don't feel like changing 1300+ airports. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Personally, if you used it as a reference, it is a reference. Vegaswikian 06:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It's a reference. "See also" is for related articles, such as an article about another airport in the same city. Dbinder 12:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. The user hase a good point as to why he changed them, see User talk:Jayvdb. If I change the reference to read "Canada Flight Supplement effective day/month/year" for all of them every 56 days will ensure that they are all up to date. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
You could always use a template for adding the reference. That way one change and you have updated 1,300 articles. Vegaswikian 22:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. That's the way to go. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

User adding flags to destination lists

User:82.41.21.236 has been adding flags to destination lists, which is a "real bad idea" in my opinion, and goes against the existing format. I've left a commonet on their talk page, but can others help revert the additions please? Thanks/wangi 23:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

They are are reverted now. Including the ones that were edited after the anon added the flags. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
They aren't all reverted. A lot of pages now have them. Dbinder 09:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Do we need to address this on the project page? While not a policy, most everyone usually respects the guidelines on project pages and following them keeps editors out of trouble. My concern is the number of hits this can add to the image server. Vegaswikian 16:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I thought I got all the ones that 82.41.21.236 did. Which did I miss? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I just looked at Adria Airways destinations and it has flags, that was the first one I checked. LukaP appaears to be the editor that added those. Contrib history shows a lot of destinations were edited. Vegaswikian 18:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Those are done. When I go back to work I'll run through the the airports by category and see what else I can find. Early Saturday morning. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I've gone through 3500+ articles from "Category:Airports in country" and not one has "Flagicon" in it. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Alliances

Do you think it would be a good idea to add small size logos next to airlines at airports to represent which alliance they belong to, to show how they are aligned at the airport? Flymeoutofhere 16:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea for the same reason as the flags. They clutter up the page, and more importantly, put quite a strain on the server. Dbinder 16:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Also might run afoul of fair use. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Citing Through Service

I posted this question on the talk page of BWI and the folks there suggested I ask it here: what is the appropriate way to cite through service? I had added a note about upcoming through service from BWI to Accra, via Banjul -- and that's just how I listed it, with the word "via." Someone removed the "via" and made it look like BWI will soon have non-stop service to both destinations--but the reality is it will be service to Accra, with a stop-over in Banjul. Now, the reason I listed it this way is because that is how it is being promoted, with the expectation that people will buy their tickets primarily for Accra. This is exactly like, say, SAA's flight from IAD to Johanneburg, which stops in Dakar for refueling and a crew change--and while you can buy a ticket for Dakar, most people know it as the flight to Jo'burg.

So should we only list the stop-over point; should we list it as "via," or should we list both destinations separatly (which I find confusing).

I vote for "via," but with the caveat that this should really only be for long-haul International routes. I think the odd domestic flight that has through-service from a hub to another spoke shouldn't be listed. I think it's just the extraordinary nature of these long-haul flights that makes this valuable info.

Thoughts? Free-world 15:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The format right now is to list direct, non-plane-changing, international destinations (without the "via" designation). I think that's been working pretty well. Dbinder (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree adding that you only list destinations where passengers can board or leave the flight. Fuel only stops and the like should not be listed. This does not appear to be that type of exception. Also, the flight number should be the same to all stops. Vegaswikian 21:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
To extend this, routes on which a carrier cannot legally carry domestic passengers also shouldn't be listed. e.g. United flies LAX-SYD-MEL, but passengers cannot board at Sydney, so in the Sydney Airport article, only LAX (and SFO) should be listed as a destination. Likewise, at Melbourne Airport, LAX should be listed, but not Sydney. The same goes for Qantas between LAX and JFK. Dbinder (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The section is intended to show cities which the airlines serve, NOT the route info. Thus, having a simple comma between Accra and Banjul DOES NOT and SHOULD NOT imply that there are two different non-stop flights. If that were the implication then what would happen to the numerous European airlines that fly the Hub-BKK-SIN route? Their listings do not imply that they have separate non-stop flights for their hubs and for the other Asian city. What the format right now is perfect as is. Elektrik Blue 82 23:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I apologize, but this doesn't seem clear at all--and for the simple fact that the heading of the section is "Airlines and nonstop destinations." That implies that what we read is, in fact, a list of all non-stop flights each airline serves from that airport. (A recent letter to the editor of the Washington Post travel section even suggested using Wikipedia to find out JUST THAT INFORMATION, since it's often not readily available on airport websites.) Further, if this is true, then there is a lot of missing information. To wit: a quick check of the current OAG schedule for BWI shows at least three different airlines serving BWI - SEA with direct flights (ie, exactly ONE stop somewhere, but the flight number and equipment are the same, and they clearly have cabotage), yet I don't see Seattle listed as a destination, with or without a comma. If it takes a conversation on the project page to understand that that's what's being communicated (even the talk page of the airport in question didn't know this answer) then how can we claim "the format right now is perfect as is." I think we need to rethink this. Free-world 02:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, the structure section on the project page says the heading should be Airlines and destinations if only one terminal or terminal(s) not identified otherwise Terminals and destinations. So nonstop should not be in the heading. I guess your confusion is one reason why it should not be included in the heading. Vegaswikian 02:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, on a one-stop direct flight with a plane change, the OAG schedule will only list the first plane used. In order to check if there is indeed a change, you need to check the two individual segments and ensure they are the same. Even then, there is no guarantee; since the 737 and 320 are the most popular domestic planes, it is quite possible for a direct flight to use one 737 from BWI to, say, ORD, and then another one to SEA, all with the same flight #. Dbinder (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, then, despite the slight disambuigation of the heading (which could be 100% disambugated by saying, "Airlines and their non-stop and direct destinations") I would argue that we should list only non-stop destinations, period, with the exception of long-haul routes, and then marked with a "via." I think spending the time to determine if a one-stop domestic route between a spoke and another spoke through a hub is indeed the same flight# and equipment is a lot of work, and nowhere near as useful as listing just non-stops--as this information is not always easy to find online, but gives a very good measure of an airport's reach. The one flight a day that just happens to take you without a plane change through a hub is probably more a scheduling fluke, than an idea of either O&D traffic or hub traffic. As I said, the exception I'd propose would be very long-haul international (or maybe even very-long domestic, if it involved, say, flying from Regan National to Anchorage via SEA or somesuch), but then marking it as "via." I think that's an exception worth noting. Deciding which is worth noting this way and which isn't doesn't have to be concrete; it could be left to the contributor to decide, in a "I'll know it when I see it" fashion. Thoughts? Free-world 13:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Exceptions make it difficult to keep things clear. It is simple to see and verify the direct flights since they are clearly listed on most (all?) airline schedules and route maps. The term 'direct flight' have been used by the travel industry and flighers for service to from point a to point b, so using that as the standard makes sense. Speaking as a past travel agent, the only issue with some customers was that they basically wanted non stop flights. So if you had to offer a direct flight with a stop or two, you had to be up front with that info. Vegaswikian 17:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
We should continue to list non-stop flights and ignore the "direct" flights that simply happen to be an accident of scheduling an aircraft that passes through a hub. Such "direct" flights are not scheduled on any particular rhyme or reason, and change monthly, weekly and even by the day. They also would radically complicate destination listings - for instance, US Airways had or has a direct flight from Kansas City to Oakland via Phoenix, but no direct service from Oakland to Kansas City! If we were to list spoke-hub-spoke direct destinations, we might as well abandon all hope of ever keeping destination lists up to date because it'll be well-nigh impossible to keep up with the changes. This does not apply to flights such as AQ's LAS-OAK-HNL service, which are scheduled and sold as one-stop direct flights rather than simply being a plane passing through a hub. [User:FCYTravis|FCYTravis]] 02:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Pilot information

Anyone else see a problem with information like Pilot information in Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport? Vegaswikian 05:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed similar information from airport articles. We really don't want Wikipedia to try to be a source of instructional material for pilots; it's almost guaranteed to be out of date after a while, and things like approach procedures are not of interest to a general encyclopedia audience. I'd keep the diagram and runway descriptions, though. MCB 06:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Help

Hi guys! we are translating article LAPA flight 3142 from Spanish into English and we're having a hard time finding some word in English. Could someone with technical knowledge give us a hand with the technical stuff? Please, take a look at the questions in Talk:LAPA flight 3142/Translation, and maybe keep it in your watchlist for future dubts. Thanks a bunch. Mariano(t/c) 10:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Belfast International Airport

Anyone fancy giving Belfast International Airport a once over... I'm of the opinon that someone within the airport's been editing the article... Thanks/wangi 21:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I wonder if all of those graphics are a copyvio? Actually most of the timeline is a copyvio from this site. Can we remove those parts without the copyvio tag being used since it is a copyvio or do we need to tag the entire article? Vegaswikian 22:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Copyright#If you find a copyright infringement says "If some of the content of a page really is an infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the talk page, along with the original source. If the author's permission is obtained later, the text can be restored." So you can remove the offending part without putting up a tag or blanking the whole article. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll help on this article. --Sunholm(talk) 13:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Cool, I think Vigas has fixed up the major problems, but it could still do with a look. Not got much time myself, but i'll keep a watch on the article's talk page if you're needing anything. Thanks/L/wangi 21:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

AFD - Latitude and longitude of airports near U.S. cities

This AFD for Latitude and longitude of airports near U.S. cities might be of interest. Thanks/wangi 13:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Uncontrolled airport

Anyone want to check over the article I've created at Uncontrolled airport? Thanks. —Mets501 (talk) 16:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Location identifier

Can someone look at this article. I just ran into it and it looks US centric. Probably needs a stonger mention of IATA and ICAO. Vegaswikian 18:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Serves XXX

What exactly is the convention behind the "Serves..." column in the airport infobox? Is it supposed to be the largest city or metropolitan area it is serving? Or is it the city or town where the airport is physically located? Someone is putting Vantaa instead of Helsinki for the case of HEL. And I have seen inconsistencies with other airports, NRT serves Narita (physical location), while KIX serves Osaka (metro area, KIX is located outside Osaka City). ATH serves Athens, FCO serves Rome, but TPE serves Taoyuan City, instead of Taipei. Thoughts? Elektrik Blue 82 11:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I was led to believe it's the closest major city; that makes the most sense. So, whatever city is listed on destination lists should be the same (i.e. HEL is listed as Helsinki (Helsinki-Vantaa Int'l), so the airport should be listed as serving Helsinki. Dbinder (talk) 13:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, you're now talking about the closest major city, aren't you? Well, did you know that Vantaa is actually bigger than Helsinki? That would then mean that the closest major city IS Vantaa, hence the Helsinki-Vantaa airport serves Vantaa. 88.112.101.221 14:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Look at the population, not just the size. Helsinki beats Vantaa by more than around 400,000 people. I'd had enough of this lack of logic. I'd revert it continually. Elektrik Blue 82 16:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
IMHO in addition to cities you can take in account that there are Helsinki Metropolitan Area also exists - so Helsinki is good name. IMHO, the best Wiki rule here will be "No original research". --TAG 21:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes in English. We use the term Pääkaupunkiseutu (Capital region). No Helsinki in that name. 88.112.101.221 13:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

May I remind you that this is the English Wikipedia. Have you ever wondered why the airport is named Helsinki-Vantaa International Airport? If the closest major city it serves is Vantaa, then why append the "Helsinki" in the first place? I find your enthusiasm to remove "Helsinki" appalling, you even removed it in the list of airports by ICAO codes. Elektrik Blue 82 16:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
In that case I need help or else I'll be violating the 3RR rule for the Helsinki-Vantaa Airport. Elektrik Blue 82 14:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I've made a few edits. Can I suggest engaging the user in discussion on the article talk page rather than the edit history, thanks/wangi 14:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that the template field is named "closest town" but is rendered as "Serves". So it's always going to be confusing, because airports are usually built at the edge of metropolitan areas, and the closest town is often something few people outside the area are familiar with, and is not at all the city or region that the airport "serves". (The number of people flying in and out of Helsinki-Vantaa who are coming to or from Vantaa specifically is very small compared to Helsinki or elsewhere in the region.)

Therefore, I think the template field should be renamed "serves" or "area_served" to eliminate this confusion. In the specific case of Helsinki-Vantaa Airport I edited the infobox and inserted what I think is the most useful contents for the field, Greater Helsinki. --MCB 17:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Grand Central Airport

Grand Central Airport (California). This historic airport, closed in 1959, had the first paved runway in the western U.S., was the starting or ending point of many record-breaking aviation feats, and was the principal airport of Los Angeles for several decades. Some of its history is in Glendale, California#History, but it deserves an article of its own. Anyone interested? -Will Beback 07:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Additional articles listing airlines and destinations

reference

Joshbaumgartner wikilinked a few references to Belfast City Airport in some other airport articles, along with full-on wikilinking with a few airport articles. I left a comment on their talk page (ref above) pointing to the standard format we use.

Following this Josh has reverted the changes on the articles, but has instead created two new articles (Belfast International Airport connections for Belfast International Airport; George Best Belfast City Airport connections for George Best Belfast City Airport). What's everyones opinion on this?

Thanks/wangi 22:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

To follow the guideline in the project. This guideline is generally enough to avoid issues at AfD. Likewise, deletion on AfD is likely if you stray from those guidelines. There are still some editors who are not happy with the destination artcicles so creating a new class of articles could be drawing unwanted attention to these articles. Vegaswikian 00:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, my feeling too... Although i'm not keen on AFDing them just yet. Thanks/wangi 18:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

External links on London Heathrow Airport

I'm currently in a discussion about a link to a page about the Heathrow Visitor Centre. The site is not the official site, does not have any encyclopedic content and has photos which are defaced with a big copyright logo. I cannot see the use in such a link, especially when the parent site is one trying to flog hotel rooms and airport transfers... So, 3rd opinion needed: Talk:London Heathrow Airport#External link to Heathrow airport centre. Thanks/wangi 18:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyone else got an opinion on this? Thanks/wangi 11:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Can you provide a link to the specific section? I just found what looked like the offical site. Vegaswikian 19:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Vegas, the disputed original link is this, while the official one is this. You might want to read the discussion in the talk page and in the edit summaries. Elektrik Blue 82 19:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I did look but was having a hard time finding that. In any case, the URL is a commerical site selling travel services. So I consider that spam. I did read parts of the rather long discusion on the talk page and it's clear that this is an issue that is raising tempers. I don't consider the fact that they have an information only page a factor here. And even that page is spam by virtue of the copyright notice. Maybe we need to add a small comment in the external links topic to cover this. It was done for the airline project to help with similar problems. Vegaswikian 20:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Vegas, might be useful if you left your opinion on the talk page... Yeah I know, things are getting a bit strained - I know mistakes get made, but in that discussion i'm a boogieman ;) /wangi 21:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Cargo Airlines

I was wondering, is there an official policy on listing cargo airlines and destinations currently? Looking at the formating section here, I only saw the format for pax carriers, nothing about freight or regular charters. On all of the airport articles I have edited, I have simply put a sub heading below the pax airlines for the strictly cargo carriers, and then on airports such as BGR, where regular charters and tech stops are common, I have put annother sub heading below that. Also, when looking at the page for CVG, I noticed that many normal Pax carriers were double listed, also appearing under cargo carriers. I have always belived that cargo carriers should only include airlines such as FedEx, UPS, DHL, and their equivilants. It would be a help to have an official policy dictating the listing of cargo carriers here. Thanks for any input. --KPWM_Spotter 22:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

What additions or changes to the article structure would you suggest? Vegaswikian 22:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think the Cargo Airlines should be set up just as the passenger airlines currently are. The only diference that I see would be that it would be offset as a subheading of the airline section, rather than an entire section to itself. I don't think many real changes need to be made, we just need to agree on the styling and wording, and put it up on the main page. I have annother question though; should cargo carriers use the same style of the major airline, with the carrier below it? There are regional carriers like Wiggins Airways that fly under the fedex and UPS banner, but aren't officially FedEx mainline. Should we classify those the same as Comair and GoJet are? --KPWM_Spotter 00:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I changed the indent level on your reply. The format and rules for listing the airlines should be the same for pax and cargo and anything else. There should be a basic standard that applies and unless what we have does not work, we should continue to use it. I think that cargo needs to be a section since it is really very different from what many people think about when you say airline. I'm not sure what your quetion about Comair and GoJet is? Are you asking about the categories they are placed in? If so, then the answer is to add all that apply. I have added a few for Wiggins. Vegaswikian 00:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I probably could have been more clear on the Comair comment. I was asking whether small feeder lines operating under the FedEx baner should be placed below FedEx and indented, as comercial feeders are. I have been adding Wiggins as a seperate airline...but I now see I probably shouldn't. I agree that what we have now works...but what we have isn't official. I'm going to add a note on the WP:Airports style section simply stating what is now in place. --KPWM_Spotter 00:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
On second thought, I'll wait before making that change. Most major airports don't list cargo operators as of now. I want to hear more opinions before changing the oficial policy. --KPWM_Spotter 00:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Dab in destination lists

There's been a bit of reverting recently on the UK airport articles, in particular for Manchester and Birmingham entries. There seems to be a disagreement on if disambiguation is required, if it should always be done, or...

Personally I feel that that entries should be "bare" and without disambiguation if it's plainly clear the airport intended - for example from a regional UK airport it's clear these refer to the UK airports, not the US ones. Additionally for the likes of LHR where there could maybe be a service to the US cities (but there's not) the UK ones should be left bare and dismbiguation tagged onto the US entries. Reverse this for US artport destination lists...

What does everyone else think? /wangi 14:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  • My opinion is that an airport should be listed the same in each article's destination list. This is part of what an encylopedia does as a part of its style sheet. We maintain a common look and feel across all articles. Vegaswikian 18:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports/Archive_3&oldid=1071815239"